shaeberle84

Keep the circle of doom but allow for an escape. If you have bad tag or something strange happens on OW so that your friends cannot join a battle, this should not be necessarily punished by death. The incentive to fight are strong enough.

Yes. This is odd.

What you need to do also is to introduce an ANKER to prevent further offshoring in leeway coasts.

Yeah but to hold a course I have to stir against the wind, right?

Will this just results in the need to sail more upwind? Then everything will slow down ...

Assist XP similar to NAL would be great, too.

Or you could introduce 2-3 more 5th rate mission ranks, similar to 6th rate missions!?

Worth a try.

Ships are not even the problem. Mods and Refits are even more expensive. This is because the ressources needed for them are in limited supply by the ports, not player-produced. If rare woods / refit ressources would be produced by a supply-demand-system with flexible prices (and flexible supply), we would have cheaper ships (and modules) and no rage-quit was needed.

So I agree with you that the rewards between PVE and PVP should be rebalanced in another way than what I have proposed. However, we strongle disagree, and I am not alone, to say that the different PVE rewards are not balanced and that there should be design changes to rebalance these. Finally, I am not sure whether inflation hurts especially newbies, since a lot of items they need are not affected by inflation. For instance, NPC produced ships and medium cannons cost the same, no mather how high the PVE rewards are. Newbies are hurt since more experienced players can earn higher PVE rewards and "ruin" the player-based economy, meaning that player-produced ships and cannons and refits/modules/books are more expensive and cannot be bought by new players. However, I do not think that any new player or even the average RvR player does need all the best items. Port battles or fights are mostly lost because of other reasons than purely better ships.

I see your point. What if rewards were generally higher, so that losing a ship does not matter that much anymore for the carebears? Edit: But you are in line with the gereral idea of balancing rewards through flexible prices and the forces of supply and demand?

Please elaborate instead of saying "no".

Yeah @rediii likes my post (first time ever I think =) )!

The Problem: Missions and trading rewards are fixed right now, that is the problem. The easy fix: Missions give the exact same amount of money, no matter whether there is 1 guy doing a mission around a town or whether therer are 100 guys doing missions around a town. If mission rewards are based on supply and demand, they will get lower the more people do missions. For example every town generates missions day on day one for 100% rewards. If they are being done, the town generates 50 more missions the next day with only 80% rewards etc. If the missions are not met, they are postet the next day for 120% rewards. Then, suddenly, trade becomes more attractive if missions people think missions are more rewarding. They do more missions and mission rewards go down to a point where trading becomes more attractive. The system balances itself out, to the point where missions and trading becomes similarly attractive when comparing rewards and risk. Futher benefits: With mission rewards depending on supply and demand: If missions are more profitable in remote ports and less profitable in safe zones and highly populated areas, we get more people out there, who are more likely to do PVP. Other side of the coin: Similarly the profits from trading are more or less fixed right now. I have posted this multiple times already. If a town has a need for a trading good and this need is not met, the price should increase by, say 10-20%, the next day until profits are so large that traders supply the good. To balance supply and demand, the production of trading goods should also be more flexible: if port-produced trading goods are not bought, prices should go down, but also supply. If trading goods are sold out every day, prices should increase, but also supply. This is a simple supply curve (Economics 101). Summary: Making mission rewards and trading profits follow supply and demand will results in an equilibrium, which benefits all, especially the @admins, who do not have to constantly react to these kind of topics and change mission rewards every two weeks. =)

Same problems.

The current system is realistic, I think. Maybe the problem is not the number of repairs, but how much they repair when it is possible to stack repair mods and skill books. So start reducing the bonuses first maybe. The problem with escape is rather super accurate stern chasers who can shoot down the sails of the hunters faster than the hunters can shoot down the sails of the escapees. Make stern chasers only use carronades and this problem is solved. No need to tackle repairs for that. If escapees want to burn repairs before they are inveitably hunted down, it is fair game. Edit: If you want to limit repairs, just increase the cooldown!?

All special ammunition should be limited, yes. But if we limit ball, it only takes the fun away and even more fights will end up in boarding parties. I think the new repair system (multiple repairs, and also chosing which type of repairs to use) is good, but stacking repair mods and endless rig repairs also reduce the fun / slow fights down / prolong fights. So yes, limit both chains and repairs, but to a sensible extent.

Reduce reinforcement BR. Problem solved.

Yes and yes! And why should clan not also be allowed to increase the battle rating limit? =)

This is a very severe "feature" to the economy. Again, a good example how fixed prices (at least for NPC production) do not work. =)

There has to be further incentives for port capture other than trade hubs. If the system stays as it is, the map wil turn grey (neutral) again. Players have to grind missions to finance ports noboby needs. Easy solution: make production buildings increase in costs, the more buildings are in a town. That way you have an incentive to produce in different ports (= cheaper).

I would love to see mission cap vanish. Back in the days we could teach new players how combat works by taking low-level missions, so they could learn. This is not possible anymore. Sad. Also, why are fleet missions always the sam size, no matter how many players join? I would love to see a dynamic BR increase, the more players start a mission. Furthermore, compared to the gold and xp gained from sinking ships, the rewards from the missions are ridiculously small. They could increase with the distance between mission and port, indicating that missions further away from ports are more dangerous.

Selling player-made ressources to NPCs is a bad idea in an economy that already lacks LH to supply enough ships, cannons and repairs.

Production happens to 99% in the five ports around a nation's capital. No need for further conquest, no need for RvR. The only ports you need is the rare wood ports. As long as production buildings are not unlimited and as long as ports cost money to maintain without further benefits, RvR will be dead due to economic reasons.

Why are refits possible to carry in the captain's chest, but books are not? That is very unintuitive. Both represent a sort of 'wisdom' and should be carryable between ports.